|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,820 Year: 4,077/9,624 Month: 948/974 Week: 275/286 Day: 36/46 Hour: 1/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think Adam and Eve got a warning first ... I tend to agree
with the rest though. I'd also like to know how the god of the OT can bereconciled against a god who wants his creations to have free will. But I think the question here was about transitionals ... and thereare other threads on that subject. [Added cause I only just read it] In New Scientist 28th September 2002 edition there is anarticle on hsp90, which apparently acts to stabilise unstable proteins, and effectively masks out some otherwise debilitating mutations. This enables an organism to 'store up' mutations without expressing them unless something (perhaps environmental) disrupts the hsp90 action, then a whole bunch of (line specific) abnormalities can show themselves. Made some fruit fly offspring look very different to theirparents apparently. [This message has been edited by Peter, 10-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I don't think it requires a knowledge of
good and evil to guess that something bad has been threatened if you do something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: They didn't need to know that it was 'bad' to eat the fruit fromthe tree of knowledge of good and evil ... it is sufficient to know that god has said you will die if you eat it. They need to be afraid of death for that to work though,so that begs the question were Adam and Eve immortal before the 'fall'? Perhaps they were immortal in the same way that the Norse godswere ... they could be killed but they would not age and die of natural causes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You don't need to understand right and wrong to understandnegative consequence. You only need to understand the nature of the consequence, andthat it is undesireable. The above is the basis of all animal training (although onecannot proove that other animals do not know right from wrong current assumptions are that they do not). If I tell my daughter that she must not do something orI will be cross with her, she does not need to know the difference between right and wrong, only that she does not like it when I am cross with her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The above is more or less my point ... you do not need to knowabout good and bad, only about the desirability or otherwise of the consequence. Not the same thing. In your three year old example (which in my experience isvery treu to life) then the child would be scolded, and told that they would be scolded again for not doing as told. The god of the bible's reaction is pretty extreme (I agree withthat), but then this is a being who is so self obsessed that he/she/it created an entire universe whose only purpose was to worship him. Oh, BTW, in case you hadn't guessed, he's not my god ...I don't have one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I agree that in the stroy in the bible god didn't
really give Adam and Eve a chance. I'm not defending that god's actions. However, good and bad are not (in this context) analagous todesireable and undesireable. The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating itthey saw that they were naked and covered themselves, for example. It's a social morality thing. It makes little sense unless taken as a parable about the evolutionof socially acceptable behaviours, and as an attempt by some priesthood or other to justify the imposition of their personal morality on others. I don't disagree with your opinion of the story, nor of god'sover reaction ... but I think you are wrong to equate consequence with good/evil judgements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
In terms of transitionals though, how would anyone
care to interret the following from http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/2905/zebxing.html "The Grevy's however is a different species, as donkeys are to zebras or horses. Their actual chromosome count is not the same as theGrants types (Types is used for Wild animals, Breeds for domestic ones) or the Mountain zebras. The offspring do have mixed patterns, but there are very few examples to work from. Many times the offspring are not viable and the mares don't carry to term. They are not as fertile in zebra/zebra hybrids as in horse/donkey hybrids, since the chromosome counts and possible relationship between the species is generally far more removed. (the Grevy's zebra has 46 chromosomes, the Mountain zebras has 32, while the plains hve 44. Interestingly, though the Grevy's seems to be the most primitive appearance-wise, chromosomally speaking, the Mountain zebra is the farthest removed genetically. Also, the Mountain zebra has a body type and pattern which appears to be median between Grevy's and Plains - ie sweeping stripes on rump, but partial gridiron and white belly like Grevy's - so could Mountain zebras be closer to a common ancestor?)." Although I guess that would be a 'root' rather than a 'transitional'it is perhaps incative of evolution in progress?? Or will this 'just' be micro-evolution despite emerging breedingbarriers? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by Peter: I agree that in the stroy in the bible god didn'treally give Adam and Eve a chance. I'm not defending that god's actions. However, good and bad are not (in this context) analagous todesireable and undesireable. The tree was knowledge of good and evil ... after eating itthey saw that they were naked and covered themselves, for example. It's a social morality thing. It makes little sense unless taken as a parable about the evolutionof socially acceptable behaviours, and as an attempt by some priesthood or other to justify the imposition of their personal morality on others. I don't disagree with your opinion of the story, nor of god'sover reaction ... but I think you are wrong to equate consequence with good/evil judgements.[/QUOTE] They are equated to each other. Bad is synonymous with evil. One can't make any such judgements unless one first understands the difference. They knew no different.[/B][/QUOTE] Not having knowledge of right and wrong (which is effectivelythe issue) does not mean that one cannot understand a warning not to do something. Modifying ones behaviour based upon a warning requires onlyan understanding of the consequence as undesireable ... not as evil. So 'bad' is not equal to 'undesireable' in this context. 'Don't eat that because it's poisonous and will kill you.'Requires you only to understand what 'eating' is and what it means to 'be killed'. It does not require any knowledge of anyone's morality. God, in genesis, doesn't say it's poisonous, he says that'if you eat it you will die' ... unless he is a very dim-witted creator he would not issue a threat which could not be understood by the very creatures that he had created. The interpretation that there was no death at all before thefall is even contentious amongst religous scholars ... as I found in another thread a few months back. Regardless of that disagreement between our two views, I do agreethat God's response was wrong (even if Adam and Eve understood the warning). It is not the act of the god of love of the NT and modern christianity. Before you respond further ... I think we broadly agree on thispoint, it is on the necessary where-withall to understand a warning that we differ, and that is largely irrelevant to the current debate on transitionals or the lack of them. I'll not respond further, because I would like to see thisthread remain open, and back on track. Perhaps you could make a new thread in coffee house or somethingto discuss this matter further. If you decide to do that please let me know and I'll continue there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Did no death exist ... not even for other animalsand plants?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024